saveasteading

Might include 'never use a xyz'. BTW I met Marsh (52) at a recent presentation. They have a new model that has...from memory.... only 2 chambers and supposedly better outfall numbers, suitable for sensitive locations. Costs £300? more, but costs less to run as it turns off for 8 hours a day to let different bugs get to work. So payback in a few years. If the times were linked to cheap power then another saving. I wonder if the pump also lasts 1/3 longer. My next one is to a non-sensitive soakaway so I'm going to think further on this new Marsh (53).

I can't remember why they were so against any use of torque specifications. Perhaps the torque wrench reacted too readily to other resistances. But overtightening appeared to be the main concern...does that damage the thread? My feeling is that the torque wrench would remove the attention and "feel" that was more important. Any Mechanical Engineers able to explain?

Re steel rusting. I've seen completely wasted structures, usually indoors in an aggressive environment. But also steel that's been exposed to the elements for 40 years, with only red oxide paint, and it is still sound.... it wets and dries again. But in or near the ground I'd say it should be rigourously protected. Perhaps galvanised, certainly painted, or both. I have a lot of time for bitumen paint....easy to apply and then slurp more into the welds and corners.

I used to build lots of steel buildings. Torque was a real thing but we were instructed by the steel designers not to be too technical about it, but to turn the nut until it feels tight and then one turn more. As above, it is more important that the nut turns on smoothly and you are only tightening: not trying to close gaps. Also , whether the anchor is solid is critical. I once pulled a resin anchor out simply by turning the nut on , and it never became tight. ( the anchor was by others, and the resin was missing the second part). Steel in wet conditions with oxygen will rust and fail. What spec are you using to avoid this?

Put it on Facebook, free to collect. Then perhaps agree a compromise once they see the location. Any BH working near you? Our steading is just half way along the road from you if you are passing with it.... 100 miles?

Is that a misprint? Lower than what? The heat produced is poor, and then it reverses to thaw itself. The circulation pump is what it is, pumping round lukewarm water. There must be 2 of them though: one for the borehole and one for the house circuit. My experience is that, installation cost disregarded, a gshp can cost as much to run as a resistance electric heater. Re noise: yes a gshp is just a hum from a pump, whereas the ashp also has the fan running in open air, producing motor noise and turbulence noise....but not much ...and it can be located to suit.

And probably sponsored by the pro oil/ climate change denying lobby. I have oil at home. The boiler is broken and I am getting a new oil boiler, nk question. A new house is being designed for ashp, even though no cheaper than oil at present. For anyone new to the subject. Fundamentally, an ashp throws away air from which energy has been taken, and new air appears. A gshp takes energy from the ground and it gets colder until it freezes. I've represented people with gshp that cost much more to run than an electric fire, and got it replaced with ashp. That developer won't be doing it again.

If the architect is endorsing gshp then this is concerning, unless you live in a volcanic area or have a flowing aquifer. Manchester? No. Tease them, they deserve it and need to learn. Show us, dear architect, some gshp projects in the area. Show us projected figures for our ground type. Will you give any financial guarantees on their performance? BTW you must not spend any of my money on your research. There are, or used to be, some honourable gshp contractors who would mostly advise that it was not suitable. Unfortunately they were pushed under by the others, one of whom perhaps has the ear of your untechnical architect.

Here is the RIBA official take on it. https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/building-safety-act-differences-between-principal-designer-roles?srsltid=AfmBOor7TVcynS-9f-viI7ifYWnZ4WhIPUsQMC4BFLAwW7vuaS6DMszB To me they are saying that Architects should protect their place in the market, whereas the point of it should be expertise. RIBA strongly advises architects to make the BRPD role their own along with the CDMPD role, to further enhance and promote the protection of specialism and function.

Loads of it. It's a shame the term PD has been used in the 2 contexts. For the bco it means technical design. For hse it means safety. It's unlikely a self builder will employ one consultant to do both unless they are hsnfing the while thing over......so a client rather than self builder. An experienced and good designer will think of both. But then there can be a second and third party fill each role.

Having a folder of advice doesn't do that either. Buy you will try, and your site diary will confirm it. That example doesn't earn much trouble from hse. The mask thing would.

Yes but I wouldn't use them. I've met a right chancer who lied about the issues and was sent packing. so i assume the worst of them all. Any groundworker can do this.

I don't think I'd bother. A tiny air pocket still insulates esp in the lower layer. BUT perhaps there's a perception difference in a commercial or diy application.

My business was design and construction. This made responsibility clear. Risk management started with designing for simplicity and safety...shallow excacations for example. I've confirmed across supposedly expert designers who don't have any real experience. And safety consultants who know next to nothing other than filling in forms and issuing vast folders of leaflets. It sounds as if your architect wants fees for prepping these documents. Fair enough. Ask to see an example. What HSE want is there to be no accidents. They don't want big waffley documents. Talking to your contractors and making them responsible for their own safety is the best solution for this but beware of platitudes and BS from them. So are you hard enough to stop them being silly? Would a safety document make any difference?

Re compressive strength. It would certainly be a concern if building walls on top of the screed. Also if intending a grand piano or perhaps gymn equipment. Otherwise probably not. Re damage. If 2 layers are used and staggered then this should be a minor problem. With or without foil faces? Doesn't matter unless facing an air gap. Thickness? Surely they are as described? Insulating property? This should not be random and I wouldn't buy without knowing this.

Could we avoid party politics on BH please, unless relevant to construction.

That seems very specific by KIngspan. The t&g doesn't add much to the insulation so you could change the floor covering. And do look at other manufacturers of pir. They are often cheaper and I would always use anyone other than KIngspan or Celotex for moral reasons

Have you checked your planning permission? It is quite common for it to state that permitted development rights are withdrawn (ie you should have made it part of the application).

I would make it of timber stud, and looking as much like a hired cabin as possible, and raised on blocks. nobody will give it a second look, and is clearly temporary.

If, say, a groundworker measures out the trenches, then the cost is included and the VAT can be recovered. If they choose to have someone else do it for them, then it might equally disappear into the construction cost.

That's a different skill entirely. There's no necessity for one party to do both.

It's all about safe working. An architect is seldom expert on this or present on site but will do the paperwork. Lots of forms and files doesn't make it safe. 1. Don't have any accidents. 2. Ask each contractor for their method statement. If that is beyond them, sit them down, talk it through and write it up. Use templates as lots is standard. 3. Try to have only one contractor on site at a time. 4. Keep watching and instructing. Modify your plans if necessary. Keep a diary. 5. Don't have any accidents. I've had several inspections. Some unannounced. What an inspector wants to see is not paperwork but an organised site. Plus he asks who is in charge at that moment.....someone must take that onus. The only unhappy inspectors i have encountered was 1. when the foreman of our groundworker hid away...all he had to do was say yes I'm in charge and talk to the guy. I didn't get into trouble. 2. And I witnessed another rollicking....a national contractor' site manager could not find the relevant method statement in among 3 huge files. He pointed at me, his subby. I showed the inspector 6 pages of relevant information and was praised loudly. Keep it simple.

A total station is very expensive and needs skill. I've got one sitting on a shelf but use tapes for buildings. That would change if measuring hundreds of metres or on steep slopes. I was taught by a mining surveyor. Satellites would not have been much help to him, had they existed. But the skills in using a tape are always useful....and I've had a hitech surveyor make huge errors and not notice, because he didn't give it a visual (or leg- pace) check. But I acknowledge that a significant proportion of us can't do the maths.

Why so many horizontal battens?

With two long (and accurate tapes) and Pythagoras you can measure to a few mm accuracy. OR setting up a long base line and taking offsets from it. It's what the ancient Egyptians probably did, and still works.